Adjusting standings for loser point

[Hunn]

It is well known that the loser point (first introduced in 1999-00 season) inflates the point total. Nowadays, the playoffs cut is usually well above 90 points, and multiple teams per season routinely get more than 100 points. The purpose of this post is to quantify the effect of loser point in order to compare team achievements from different seasons and eras.

There are two ways of quantifying the loser point – "team-by-team" and "global" (uniform adjustment of the whole table).

Team-by-team

A team record can be adjusted by calculating the share of points the team won:

Points taken / (Points taken + Points surrendered)

Points taken: 2 for any win + 1 for every OT/SO loss,
Points surrendered: 2 for any loss + 1 for every OT/SO win.

Example: currently, the Islanders are on pace to 82 × 42 / 29 = 119 points; in 29 games they took 42 points (20 wins, 2 OT/SO losses) and surrendered 25 points (9 losses, 7 OT/SO wins); their adjusted point total is on pace to 103 points.

Global

Total amount of points available:

Number of games per team × Number of teams + Total amount of loser points

Total amount of loser points varies from season to season: 131 points on average from 1999-00 to 2003-04 and 289 points on average (not counting lockout-shortened 2012-13 season) since introduction of shootouts and elimination of ties.

Adjusting coefficient:

Number of games per team × Number of teams / Total amount of points available

Last season there were 271 loser points; hence, the coefficient is 82 × 31 / (82 × 31 + 271) = 0.904.

Example: the historical 2018-19 Tampa Bay season produced 128 points; adjusting it for the loser point gives 116 points.

On average, the loser point inflates the point total by 5.4% for 1999-2004 and by 11.7% since 2005.

While team-by-team approach is more fair, the global one is easier to calculate and it also does not alter the order of standings. Below are the best and worst seasons adjusted for the loser point globally and normalized to 82 games (points rounded to the nearest whole number).

5 best seasons of all time:

Season	Team	Points Real	Points Adjusted
1929-30	Boston Bruins	77	144
1943-44	Montreal Canadiens	83	136
1976-77	Montreal Canadiens	132	135
1977-78	Montreal Canadiens	129	131
1944-45	Montreal Canadiens	80	131

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

5 worst seasons of all time:

Season	Team	Points Real	Points Adjusted
1929-30	Pittsburgh Pirates	13	24
1992-93	Ottawa Senators	24	23
1992-93	San Jose Sharks	24	23
1930-31	Philadelphia Quakers	12	22
1974-75	Washington Capitals	21	22

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

5 best seasons since 2005:

Season	Team	Points Real	Points Adjusted
2012-13	Chicago Blackhawks	77	118
2018-19	Tampa Bay Lightning	128	116
2005-06	Detroit Red Wings	124	111
2012-13	Pittsburgh Penguins	72	111
2015-16	Washington Capitals	120	108

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

5 worst seasons since 2005:

Season	Team	Points Real	Points Adjusted
2006-07	Philadelphia Flyers	56	50
2014-15	Arizona Coyotes	56	50
2014-15	Buffalo Sabres	54	48
2013-14	Buffalo Sabres	52	46
2016-17	Colorado Avalanche	48	43

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Detroit is currently on pace for the worst season since 2005.

Of course, the exercise above is purely academic – there were a lot of different things across seasons and eras, even the rules were different. However, it gives one some perspective about claims of historicity, "best season ever", etc.

Click to read more...

 

[PB37]

That 29-30 Bruins team was a powerhouse. The Dynamite Line with Cooney Weiland and Dit Clapper, both at nearly a goal per game ( 43 in 44 games for Weiland and 41 in 44 for Clapper ). Shore was ridiculous as well, over 30 points in 44 games, unheard of at the time for a Dman. He even added over 100 penalty minutes just for good measure. He probably would have been a PPG dman in an era where defensemen weren't considered threats to score if he wasn't sitting in the box so much.

 

[Butch 19]

Whut...?

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

This again...

For the 100000000th time: The point is for BEING TIED AFTER REGULATION.

OT and Shootout is where the bonus point is decided.

 

[MNNumbers]

I prefer a different way to do the math. I believe it results in the same answer, but it's easy for my mind to follow.

First, team-by-team..... In this case I like the idea of (Points won)/(Total points awarded in the team's games). Islanders example is clear....
29 games....67 points awarded....or, in more detail....13 RW, 7 OTW, 2 OTL, 7 RL.....
Counting points....Islanders have 42 out of the 67 awarded. Take that ratio, and apply to 160 pts for a season.

Global reckoning:
I like to do it this way:
First, Count the loser pts. 271.
Now, rather than use a multiplicative co-efficient, I would say....
Last year, there were 1271 games played. Since 271 went to OT, that is 271/1271 or 21.32% of games going to overtime. (Think about that for a minute. More than 1 in 5. Some years it's closer to 1 in 4).
That means that, on average, each game gave out 2.2132 pts last year.
So, to normalize, I would take the Lightning 128 pts, and multiply by 2/2.2132. And, that gives the same answer.

It'st just easier to follow the math this way.

Another alternative is to simply subtract from each team's point total it's OTW. That would give you the results of each team as if there were no overtime. Or, subtract the Shootout wins only, and also subtract the OT Losses (but not the SO losses). And, that would give you record if there were ties, and a 5-min OT.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Do you know what's kinda funny? The NHL used to have rules of no "loser points" prior to 1999-2000, but you'd just get a tie if no one won in the OT period. What that rule change actually did was that it stopped teams from playing for ties, because just based on looking at the numbers quickly, the amount of ties seemed to absolutely plummet with the new rule.

Do you know what getting rid of the OT loser point would do? The same exact thing, teams would play for the shootout and the NHL will flat out never take away the point for a shootout loss (because it's a skills competition, not actual hockey). People say that they need to get rid of the "loser point" because teams "play for OT" with knowing they can get a point by losing in OT, but all that would change is that teams would instead play for the SO.

 

[tony d]

To me there should be no loser points for an overtime loss just for a shootout loss.

 

[MNNumbers]

Do you know what's kinda funny? The NHL used to have rules of no "loser points" prior to 1999-2000, but you'd just get a tie if no one won in the OT period. What that rule change actually did was that it stopped teams from playing for ties, because just based on looking at the numbers quickly, the amount of ties seemed to absolutely plummet with the new rule.

Do you know what getting rid of the OT loser point would do? The same exact thing, teams would play for the shootout and the NHL will flat out never take away the point for a shootout loss (because it's a skills competition, not actual hockey). People say that they need to get rid of the "loser point" because teams "play for OT" with knowing they can get a point by losing in OT, but all that would change is that teams would instead play for the SO.

The OP knows this, and so do I. What we are discussing is NOT changing the standings or the point system. What is being discussed is:

How can you compare the Lightning in 2018-19 with the Canadiens in 75-76, when the points were different. So, it's a mathematical adjustment in the team's point to negate the effect of some games awarding 3 pts under the current system.

Not a complaint about the system. Not a request for a different system. Just a way to compare with past years.

 

[Dr Pepper]

This again...

For the 100000000th time: The point is for BEING TIED AFTER REGULATION.

OT and Shootout is where the bonus point is decided.

If a team gets a single point, or moves up in the standings following a game they lost (after regulation), guess what? It's going to be seen as a loser point.

No player who loses in OT or in a shootout is upset they didn't get the "bonus point". They're mad they lost the game.

Hence the term, "loser point".

 

[hoglund]

This again...

For the 100000000th time: The point is for BEING TIED AFTER REGULATION.

OT and Shootout is where the bonus point is decided.

While this is true a regulation win should be worth more than a tie and a bonus point.

 

[Cup or Bust]

To call it a loser point is no different then calling the extra point a gimmik point handed out for a shootout or 3 on 3 win.

 

[Dr Pepper]

To call it a loser point is no different then calling the extra point a gimmik point handed out for a shootout or 3 on 3 win.

Not really.

Teams are awarded two points for a win, regardless of when it happens. There is no "gimmick point"; the winning team gets two points. Simple.

The losing team, depending on when they lose, gets either zero points or one point.

It's a loser point.

 

[MNNumbers]

By now, we all know what it is, and what to call it is just an argument about preferences. In any case, this thread is not about that. It is about how to compare great teams (or poor ones) from this era to those from eras in which each game awarded 2 standings points.

 

[Cup or Bust]

Not really.

Teams are awarded two points for a win, regardless of when it happens. There is no "gimmick point"; the winning team gets two points. Simple.

The losing team, depending on when they lose, gets either zero points or one point.

It's a loser point.

The initial points are awarded before overtime, but regardless it depends on what a person considers as a legitimate way to win a hockey game. I do not consider losing a 3 on 3 or shootout as a legitimate way to lose a hockey game. So I think it is fair that the other team gets the tie game point at the end of regulation.

 

[Dr Pepper]

The initial points are awarded before overtime, but regardless it depends on what a person considers as a legitimate way to win a hockey game. I do not consider losing a 3 on 3 or shootout as a legitimate way to lose a hockey game. So I think it is fair that the other team gets the tie game point at the end of regulation.

The NHL didn't want any game to end in a tie. So they introduced the shootout as a new means of deciding the winner of each game.

It IS a win, and it counts for two points the same way a 7-0 blowout counts for two points.

I know, I know, there's the "regulation/OT win" tiebreaker that comes into effect at season's end, but as far as the standings are concerned it's still two points regardless of when or how the win occurs.

If the NHL decides to bring back the tie and do away with the loser point, I'm all for that as well.

I just don't feel like any team should lose a game and still gain a point from it.

 

[Burke the Legend]

While this is true a regulation win should be worth more than a tie and a bonus point.

Well that's a business decision. It keeps teams closer together in the standings so you have more teams still within striking distance of a playoff spot in March. It makes large playoff races more likely at end of season but it with the downside of diminishing the importance of an average regular season game (especially against a non-conference team).

 

[Cup or Bust]

The NHL didn't want any game to end in a tie. So they introduced the shootout as a new means of deciding the winner of each game.

It IS a win, and it counts for two points the same way a 7-0 blowout counts for two points.

I know, I know, there's the "regulation/OT win" tiebreaker that comes into effect at season's end, but as far as the standings are concerned it's still two points regardless of when or how the win occurs.

If the NHL decides to bring back the tie and do away with the loser point, I'm all for that as well.

I just don't feel like any team should lose a game and still gain a point from it.

Well technically the teams don't lose the game, they lose the 3 on 3 or the shootout. If they could find a way to play hockey until someone wins the game, then it would be pretty cut and dry though, and I would certainly agree.

 

[rintinw]

The OP knows this, and so do I. What we are discussing is NOT changing the standings or the point system. What is being discussed is:

How can you compare the Lightning in 2018-19 with the Canadiens in 75-76, when the points were different. So, it's a mathematical adjustment in the team's point to negate the effect of some games awarding 3 pts under the current system.

Not a complaint about the system. Not a request for a different system. Just a way to compare with past years.

Then it should have been done properly and not by approximation.

 

[Number8]

This again...

For the 100000000th time: The point is for BEING TIED AFTER REGULATION.

OT and Shootout is where the bonus point is decided.

Not sure if it's necessary to get so agitated over semantics. Loser point, bonus point, "gee you did a swell job through 60 minutes" point, call it whatever makes you happy. The end result -- the team that loses the game still gets a point.

Might want to take a walk and a couple of deep breaths.......

 

[MNNumbers]

Then it should have been done properly and not by approximation.

I really don't understand your post. The idea is simple:

Montreal in 75-76 played games in which each game awarded 2 pts.
Tampa Bay played games in which the average game awarded 2.2121 pts.

If you want to compare the teams, it seems very reasonable to say:
Take Tampa's total and multiply by 2/2.2132.

What is 'approximation' about that?

It seems the other option would be to look at the results and remove the points gained from winning in overtime.
Or, perhaps to say "OT wins would be ok, but Shootout should not be", and then you would remove the points from winning in SO, but also remove the points from losing in OT.

Or, do you have something else in mind?

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

If a team gets a single point, or moves up in the standings following a game they lost (after regulation), guess what? It's going to be seen as a loser point.

No player who loses in OT or in a shootout is upset they didn't get the "bonus point". They're mad they lost the game.

Hence the term, "loser point".

Hahahahahaha. You think players get mad at shootout "losses"?

They only care if they get the extra point or not.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Not sure if it's necessary to get so agitated over semantics. Loser point, bonus point, "gee you did a swell job through 60 minutes" point, call it whatever makes you happy. The end result -- the team that loses the game still gets a point.

Might want to take a walk and a couple of deep breaths.......

Shootouts aren't 'the game'. OT is hardly the game anymore. That's the point. It isn't a 'loser' point; It's a point earned for not losing the actual 5 on 5 game. They ended that way for the first ~80 years until the league decided it needed a 'winner' every night, even if manufactured through gimmicks.

These threads come 2-3 times a week. They get old.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Hahahahahaha. You think players get mad at shootout "losses"?

They only care if they get the extra point or not.

Uh, yes?

Of course they do, every player wants to win.

What a silly question.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

This again...

For the 100000000th time: The point is for BEING TIED AFTER REGULATION.

OT and Shootout is where the bonus point is decided.

Yes this again. for the 100000000th time.

Its a loser point.

deal with it

 

[Number8]

Shootouts aren't 'the game'. OT is hardly the game anymore. That's the point. It isn't a 'loser' point; It's a point earned for not losing the actual 5 on 5 game. They ended that way for the first ~80 years until the league decided it needed a 'winner' every night, even if manufactured through gimmicks.

These threads come 2-3 times a week. They get old.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an old time fan who does not like 3 v 3 and cannot stand the shootout.

That said, this is still semantics. Like it or not, when players celebrate scoring a goal in the 3 v 3 or the shootout goes in one teams direction ..... they are celebrating the fact that they "won". You may not like it, but that's the deal and it's not debatable.

As far as the issue coming up again and again, I think the OP was just mucking around trying to compare different eras. No harm there it would seem. And if there is for you, just avoid it man. Life is too short.